memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:P-51 Mustang
Picture We need a picture of a P-51, preferably from Zero Hour or Storm Front.- B-101 23:13, 9 Oct 2004 (CEST) :Was the fuel capacity of the P-51 mentioned in the show? If not, then it shouldn't be in the article.--31dot 23:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC) In v of First, I didn't even notice that the page had been changed when I changed it back, I simply though I had just though about changing the word but forgot. That said, in "sounds" better in this case, since using the word of creates a break in how you, or at least I, would say that, and that would reinsert the commas. - 17:19, December 16, 2011 (UTC) :The operative words being "or at least I". The rules of grammar indicate that commas should not necessarily be dependent on how a sentence should be said (particularly irrelevant here because this is not a quote) but, more importantly, should be dependent on sentence structure. The words separated by commas should make sense by themselves. Thus, your suggestion – "Originally, the sequence in "Zero Hour", in which the Mustangs appear, was scripted to be set circa 1942" – makes no sense, because there is no one "sequence in 'Zero Hour'"; the reader requires the rest of that sentence for context, so that the sentence does make sense. This "in" versus "of" issue is purely your opinion of what "'sounds' better," versus my own personal preference of avoiding too much repetition; it's entirely subjective. However, I'd also be open to accepting "Originally, the sequence in 'Zero Hour' wherein the Mustangs appear," as a second option. --Defiant 18:02, December 16, 2011 (UTC) :IMO, we should not include the phrase "originally scripted," as this misleading. Even the final draft script of sets the sequence in "circa 1942." --Defiant 19:47, December 16, 2011 (UTC) Since "in which the Mustangs appear" is only stating what is implicit because of the page, I decided to style it as a tangent to the core message of "...the sequence in "Zero Hour" was scripted to be set circa 1942...". That said, I would like to know in which MOS, and where, it's written that "words separated by commas should make sense by themselves". I also find the reverting a purely stylistic change stating that it "replaced valid info" to be questionable at best, especially since both are equally as "valid". If we must state what sequence we're talking about, and I don't think we need to since we don't bother stating explicitly what "this type of airplane" is, it should be worded as such: "Originally, the final sequences in "Zero Hour" were scripted to be set circa 1942, but, after some research, the visual effects team discovered that this type of airplane could not be used in that setting." since, after all, the sequence after the one with the Mustangs was suppose to be in 1942 as well. - 21:26, December 16, 2011 (UTC) :I never thought of that. It's actually a very valid point, IMO; good catch! :) --Defiant 23:12, December 16, 2011 (UTC) :On the other hand, it does assume reader foreknowledge (specifically, that the planes appear in one of "the final sequences"). "This type of airplane" is not guilty of the same mistake, as no other type of airplane prior to that statement has even been mentioned; it'd be a different story if it were after the reference to P-38s and -39s, since there's an obviously higher risk that it could consequently lead to reader confusion. That said, I'm happy with either your most recently suggested version, or the way it's currently written. --Defiant 23:21, December 16, 2011 (UTC) Might as well just use the onscreen year to disambiguate the end of the episode from the rest, since Archer in the camp doesn't involve any planes but was still suppose to be in 1942 originally. - 23:51, December 16, 2011 (UTC) :Yeah, and that's what the scripted reference to the year actually pertains to (despite both scenes being set circa 1942, as you say). Another issue I'd like to determine is whether there are other forms of Mustang airplanes than just P-51s. The script describes the crafts merely as "Three World War Two American Mustangs". --Defiant 00:19, December 17, 2011 (UTC) There were several models of P-51s, all the way to a M model, but there are no other military aircraft with that name. - 00:23, December 17, 2011 (UTC) :Okay; thanks for that. I actually agree with sulfur that the comma before the "but" is (in his words) "extraneous." However, as I've explained here, the use of the term "originally scripted" is misleading, verging on the incorrect. --Defiant 01:35, December 17, 2011 (UTC) You're reach quite far if you claim two on one without comments here is a consensus. Find me anything that says two sentences aren't suppose to be connected by a comma. - 02:05, December 17, 2011 (UTC) ::The sentence as it is now reads well and comfortably. The comma where it is now (before the 'but') is ok when things play out the way they do now. The big issue with commas is that they tend to be terribly overused. The real key is to remove every comma and then only add back the ones that are absolutely required. That's where we are now. -- sulfur 02:31, December 17, 2011 (UTC) Sacrilege! Commas aren't used nearly enough! Removing anything close to interesting sentence structure just leads to rather plain and boring text. Moving a section of a sentence to a more interesting place doesn't suddenly mean you don't use a comma where one is suppose to be either. - 03:00, December 17, 2011 (UTC) :::As an aside, commas aren't for connecting things that could be separate sentences. That's the job of a semicolon. --OuroborosCobra talk 01:22, December 18, 2011 (UTC) As an aside OC, you're completely wrong. You can make those two separate sentences by adding a period after 1942, but because of the content you wouldn't just use a semicolon when connecting them, you would use a "but" instead. It says that right on page you the linked to, along with the fact that you are suppose to use a comma before a "but". Just because a comma was used right after the "but" so a section of the sentence could be placed somewhere more interesting doesn't change the fact that a comma is used before that word. - 01:52, December 18, 2011 (UTC) :It turns out I didn't phrase correctly what I meant to say. What I meant is that a sentence should still make sense if the words encased between commas were removed. For example, "Billy tells Fred, on the telephone, that his foot is sore." That makes grammatical sense, with the commas being used correctly. What Archduk seems to be proposing is that the first comma comes before the word "Fred", resulting in, "Billy tells, Fred on the telephone, that his foot is sore." This neither makes grammatical sense, nor is the punctuation used correctly. --Defiant 12:55, December 18, 2011 (UTC) That's not what I purposed, or even suggested for that matter, nor is that even close to how I've formatted a sentence here. What I'm flat out saying now, since we're still talking about this, is that the only thing wrong with the formatting of the sentence "Originally, the sequence in "Zero Hour", in which the Mustangs appear, was scripted to be set circa 1942, but, after some research, the visual effects team discovered that this type of airplane could not be used in that setting." is your misconceptions and personal prejudices about how sentences have to be formatted, and how punctuation has to be used. - 15:37, December 18, 2011 (UTC) :To be honest, those "personal preferences" are only there because I've literally been told them more times than I can count! And it's "proposed," not "purposed" – there is a right and a wrong way. --Defiant 15:53, December 18, 2011 (UTC) You are, of course, right Defiant, I did mean to use "propose" instead of "purpose". - 19:51, December 18, 2011 (UTC) Serial Numbers The serial number on at least one of the Mustangs, possibly both, is an error. I do not know if this observation should be placed in the bginfo. Starting on July 1, 1921 (the beginning of FY 1922) a new serial number system was adopted based on procurement within each Fiscal Year. Each serial number now consisted of a base number corresponding to the last two digits of the FY in which money was allocated to manufacture the aircraft, and a sequence number indicating the sequential order in which the particular aircraft was ordered within that particular FY. For example, airplane 22-1 was the first aircraft ordered in FY 1922, 23-1 was the first example ordered in FY 1923, etc. This system is still in use today. http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_serials/usafserials.html One of the serial numbers begins with 47, or, in other words, money was allocated to the manufacture of this aircraft in 1947, three years after the events in the episode. The correct number should have been 44 or 43. I feel pointing this out is a nitpick. I could be wrong. What do others think?--Memphis77 (talk) 12:38, August 27, 2017 (UTC)